GYASI RAM vs COLLECTOR — C.A. No. 6992/2014
Case under Section IV. Status: DISPOSED.
CNR: SCIN010072652004
Filing Date
01-Apr-2004
Registration No
C.A. No. 6992/2014
Diary Number
7265/2004
Order Date
16-Sep-2025
Document Type
Judgement - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Data as of 20-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GYASI RAM
Adv. R. C. KAUSHIK
Respondent(s)
COLLECTOR
Adv. B. K. SATIJA KAILASH CHAND (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-3] ANKUR MITTAL[R-3]
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-Feb-2022 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 22-Feb-2022 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 17-Feb-2022 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 16-Feb-2022 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 15-Feb-2022 | Fixed Date by Court |
Orders in this case
Common Record of Proceedings — heard with connected matters
Lead case: C.A. No. 6990/2014
Summary of State of Haryana v. Jai Singh and Others (C.A. No. 006992/2014) Case Overview The Supreme Court dismissed the State of Haryana's appeal challenging a High Court judgment that upheld landowners' rights to unutilized "bachat land" (surplus land) from consolidation schemes under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. Key Decision The Court held that land contributed by proprietors on a pro-rata basis during consolidation but not reserved or earmarked for common purposes does not vest with the State or Gram Panchayat, but instead reverts to the proprietors in proportion to their contribution. Main Legal Issues Addressed 1. Amendment Validity (Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992): - Expanded definition of "shamilat deh" (common land) - Court found it constitutionally valid but limited in application 2. Article 31-A Second Proviso (Property Rights): - Analyzed whether land acquisition requires compensation at market rates - Court distinguished between: - Acquisition by the State (requires compensation) - Modification of rights for common purposes (may not require compensation if beneficiary is not the State) 3. Bachat Land Rights: - Land reserved for common use vests with Gram Panchayat - Bachat land (unutilized/surplus land) remains with proprietors - This principle consistently applied across 100+ High Court judgments Reasoning The Court relied on three Constitution Bench precedents: Ranjit Singh, Ajit Singh, and Bhagat Ram (1966), which established that land not actually utilized for common purposes cannot be permanently divested from proprietors without compensation. Outcome State's appeal dismissed. Landowners retain rights to bachat land in proportion to their contribution during consolidation proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts